Phone call follow-up after RheumAtologIcal rehabilitation Stays: Evaluation of effects

Effects of structured goal planning and tailored follow-up in rehabilitation for patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases: a stepped wedge cluster randomised trial

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Unknown

Study type

Interventional

Source

ISRCTN

Registry ID

ISRCTN91433175

Enrollment

312

Registered

2011-06-21

Start date

2011-08-23

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2019-08-26

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Inflammatory rheumatic diseases / rehabilitation Musculoskeletal Diseases Rheumatism, unspecified

Interventions

The new program (PRAISE) is based on existing rehabilitation programs delivered at rheumatology departments and rehabilitation centres in Health Region Sout-East Norway, but the following four element

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

All

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: 1. Patients admitted to the participating rehabilitation centres with one of the following inflammatory rheumatic diagnoses: rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatric arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, systemic lupus erythematosus, juvenile idiopathic arthritis or generalised osteoarthritis effecting either the hip or knee 2. Aged 18 years or older 3. A good understanding of Norwegian language 4. Able and willing to sign the informed consent form

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: 1. Cognitive impairment 2. Severe psychiatric disorder 3. Patients with rheumatic disease undergoing rehabilitation after elective orthopaedic surgery

Design outcomes

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
1. The Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scales (ASES) for pain and symptoms 2. Pain and fatigue measured on Numeric Rating Scales (NRS) 3. Other aspects of health related quality of life measured by the SF-36 domains Bodily Pain (BP), Role Physical (RP), Mental Health (MH), Vitality (VT), General Health (GH), Role Emotional (RE) and Social Functioning (SF). 4. In addition data on health care resource allocation and costs will be collected The data will be collected at baseline, discharge and follow-up at 26 weeks and 52 weeks after discharge.	—

Measure

Time frame

1. The Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scales (ASES) for pain and symptoms 2. Pain and fatigue measured on Numeric Rating Scales (NRS) 3. Other aspects of health related quality of life measured by the SF-36 domains Bodily Pain (BP), Role Physical (RP), Mental Health (MH), Vitality (VT), General Health (GH), Role Emotional (RE) and Social Functioning (SF). 4. In addition data on health care resource allocation and costs will be collected The data will be collected at baseline, discharge and follow-up at 26 weeks and 52 weeks after discharge.

—

Primary

Measure	Time frame
1. Goal attainment and health related quality of life measured by the Patient Generated Index (PGI). PGI is an individualised instrument which is completed in three stages: 1.1. In stage one the respondent is asked to identify up to five important areas of their life that are affected by their rheumatic disease. 1.2. In stage two the respondents is asked to rate these areas on a numeric rating scale from 0 - 6 where 0 = as bad as could possibly be, and 6 = as good as could possibly be. 1.3. In stage three, respondents are asked to distribute ten points to indicate the relative importance of each of the areas described in stage one, with most points allocated to the most important areas. The PGI may thereafter serve as a basis for developing individual rahabilitation goals, and the scores and re-scorings to evaluate attainment of these goals.	—

Measure

Time frame

1. Goal attainment and health related quality of life measured by the Patient Generated Index (PGI). PGI is an individualised instrument which is completed in three stages: 1.1. In stage one the respondent is asked to identify up to five important areas of their life that are affected by their rheumatic disease. 1.2. In stage two the respondents is asked to rate these areas on a numeric rating scale from 0 - 6 where 0 = as bad as could possibly be, and 6 = as good as could possibly be. 1.3. In stage three, respondents are asked to distribute ten points to indicate the relative importance of each of the areas described in stage one, with most points allocated to the most important areas. The PGI may thereafter serve as a basis for developing individual rahabilitation goals, and the scores and re-scorings to evaluate attainment of these goals.

—

Countries

Norway

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ISRCTN (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Mar 20, 2026